The misconception is what some consider well "known." But again this isn't the place for that discussion.
The analysis you suggest is suspect as well. Even if there was a split, and if it happened to align with who appointed them, it does not suggest that the groups favor certain plaintiffs over others. It could suggest one side is more inclined to rule based on law (as is their job), and the other based on what they want. Or it could be that there is no split at all.
All of the judges so far have not been ruling on the same legal issues either.
You’re allowed to believe whatever you’d like.
Danial Wallach, legal analyst, said what I expected. Judges appointed by the “rule on what you want” party(as you say) are much much more likely to rule in favor of Elliott.
When it gets the the appeal the 3 judges chosen are the key. He said if he gets the two that ruled against Brady(one was from each of your groups)in his case or other judges appointed by “the rule of law” party(as you say)it will not go his way.
Again, this was predictable and known by me. I guess you’re saying not you. I’m sorry of assuming and using the word known. Omit that from the records if you’d like.